Federal judge dismisses part of lawsuit against Arkansas classroom ‘indoctrination’ ban 

A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed an equal protection claim in a lawsuit challenging Arkansas’ ban on “indoctrination” in public schools and ordered additional briefing on whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

Filed in March 2024, the lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Section 16 of an expansive education law called the LEARNS Act that prohibits “indoctrination” in Arkansas schools. 

U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky in May 2024 granted a preliminary injunction against that section of the law. A three-judge panel from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out that ruling in July 2025 and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

Arkansas educators examine revised AP African American Studies curriculum

In Wednesday’s 28-page order, Rudofsky disagreed with the Arkansas State Conference NAACP’s argument that the state education department’s removal of an AP African American Studies pilot course from the 2023-2024 approved courses list violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to equal protection. 

Rudofsky said the NAACP did not plead facts that make it plausible that Education Secretary Jacob Oliva engaged in intentional or purposeful discrimination when he revoked the course’s approved course status. Rudofsky noted that the NAACP argued the course’s status was revoked because of the governor’s desire to protect Arkansas students from “left-wing political agenda brainwashing.”

“A desire to protect students from ‘left-wing indoctrination’ is not tantamount to a discriminatory intent or purpose to adversely impact African American students. End of story,” he wrote.

Arkansas is among several Republican-led states that have placed limits on how race is taught in public schools, including prohibitions on critical race theory. CRT is an academic framework centering on the idea that racism is systemic in the nation’s institutions, and the theory is not a fixture of K-12 education.

Whatever someone thinks about making credit decisions based on the politics of a class curriculum, such action is not racial discrimination, Rudofsky said. The Equal Protection Clause is about discriminating against people, and discriminating against ideas is not the same as discriminating against people, he said. 

“Because there is no such thing as a ‘black idea’ or a ‘white idea,’ discriminating against ideas cannot in and of itself violate the Equal Protection Clause,” Rudofsky said. “Similarly, because there is no such thing as a ‘black course’ or a ‘white course,’ discriminating against a particular course cannot in and of itself violate the Equal Protection Clause.”

Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately return a request for comment Wednesday. The attorney general’s office, which is representing the state, praised the judge’s ruling. 

“The court correctly dismissed the plaintiffs’ equal protection claims, and we look forward to continuing to defend the LEARNS Act as the case proceeds,” attorney general spokesperson Jeff LeMaster said. 

Rudofsky ordered parties to file additional briefs on whether that section of the law is so vague it violates the due process rights of teachers challenging the ban.

The ban was challenged by teachers, students and parents at Little Rock Central High School, site of the 1957 desegregation crisis. The teachers have argued they’re self-censoring what and how they teach because they don’t want to suffer the consequences of accidentally running afoul of the law. Rudofsky acknowledged it’s plausible that there was, at some point, a credible threat of disciplinary enforcement. 

However, he said defendants have confirmed the law only prohibits “compel[ling] somebody to adopt, affirm, or profess” a position that otherwise violates Section 16,” and there’s nothing in the operative complaint that suggests the teachers involved in the lawsuit are engaging in or want to engage in that type of compulsion. 

Rudofsky wrote that “it seems fanciful to think that Ms. [Ruthie] Walls or any other teacher would stumble into discipline here.” 

Ruthie Walls, the lead plaintiff in the case, is a teacher at Little Rock Central High School.

There seems to no longer be any real credible threat of enforcement, said Rudofsky, who questioned if that makes the vagueness challenges moot. 

Defendants’ opening brief is due by Aug. 26. Plaintiffs’ response is due 21 days after defendants file their opening brief.